Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 356 posts

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#341

Post by imgabe »

overthemoon wrote: post #339
imgabe wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should anyone run a sub-4 minute mile? Should anyone be 7 feet tall? Should anyone make the world's largest pizza? What other outliers are you going to put yourself in charge of regulating?

None of these (except the pizza?) are the result of policy, a billion dollars is. None of these polarize undemocratic power, a billion dollars does. None of them are innate in the sense that they cannot be separated from the person like extreme wealth. Height and athletic ability are neutral in a way that extreme wealth are not. Height and athletic ability are biological and meritorious in a way extreme wealth could…

You are missing the point. When you start talking about what "should" be, you imply that there is some authority in charge of deciding the rightness of what is or isn't. Who is that authority? Which bureaucrat in Washington do you want to sit at a desk and decide how much money you are allowed to have?

Right now Jeff Bezos "has" umpty-billion dollars because he owns so many shares of Amazon stock and the market values those shares at a certain amount. So, how do you propose to make him not a billionaire? Are you going to confiscate his shares and hand them over to the government? Would the government be better at running Amazon than Jeff Bezos is? Are you going to pass a law that forbids anyone from buying a share of Amazon for a value any more than what would make Bezos a billionaire? What exactly is the plan here?

People who spout off nonsense like there shouldn't be billionaires, haven't ever though through what that means or what it would imply to make their half-baked notions into a reality.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#342

Post by a11yguy »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #80
DoreenMichele wrote: post #21

Years ago, a friend of the family said "You're so smart. Everyone thought you would be a millionaire by age thirty. What happened?" I pointed at my kids and said "They happened. And they take all my time." I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth. So, for starters, not all interests or career paths have equal potential to lead to wealth. Intelligence in no way guarantees that…

> I was a full-time wife and mom. This is not a career known to lead to great wealth. I would say it leads to the greatest form of wealth. We just do not measure it in $$$. A society that has bad parents will soon be a bad society.

I've always wondered why we devalue parenthood and make people feel like they aren't contributing when they choose to raise kids over having a career. As a parent, I don't see how much of any work I do could be more important than my child. It's just twisted to me, that we devalue something so important and meaningful.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#343

Post by synlatexc »

cryptoz wrote: post #49
sosuke wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dang, your friend of the family could use a little more tact. I loath those kinds of questions.

Microeconomics classes in America teach undergrads that 'rational' people only care about increases in wealth and do not care about non-wealth-increasing activities. It is such a wrong model about human behavior but it gets repeated like gospel every year at most schools in the country. So it's no wonder that people are out there, suggesting that we're all idiots for not focusing exclusively on wealth accumulation th…

Reminded of this line from Paranoid Park: "Grownups do stuff for money. There is no other reason."

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#344

Post by tathougies »

mijamo wrote: post #217
tathougies wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why the slogan "Billionaires should not exist" is not without merit. A net worth of 100mil still means generational wealth. But once you're in the billions, the gap to all the other employees in your company becomes just crazy - but none of the billions would have been possible without their labor. On the other hand, suppose you employ 30,000 people each with 10,000 in savings from working at your company.…

You don't know that though. They could have just worked somewhere else and earned as much. It's not like you're creating money out of thin air.

Actually yes.. Production of goods does indeed create money out of thin air (and raw materials).

They could have earned just as much elsewhere. However since we are not in a situation of labor shortages yet, every income providing job is still important. If your employees worked elsewhere they may be as rich as they are with you, but the guy whose job they replaced would have to look for another job.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#345

Post by ForHackernews »

imgabe wrote: post #341
overthemoon wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these (except the pizza?) are the result of policy, a billion dollars is. None of these polarize undemocratic power, a billion dollars does. None of them are innate in the sense that they cannot be separated from the person like extreme wealth. Height and athletic ability are neutral in a way that extreme wealth are not. Height and athletic ability are biological and meritorious in a way extreme wealth could…

You are missing the point. When you start talking about what "should" be, you imply that there is some authority in charge of deciding the rightness of what is or isn't. Who is that authority? Which bureaucrat in Washington do you want to sit at a desk and decide how much money you are allowed to have? Right now Jeff Bezos "has" umpty-billion dollars because he owns so many shares of Amazon stock and the market value…

Just tax the shit out of these bozos. It's not that complicated jfc.

It's not even like tax evasion would be a big risk, because, as you say, most of that wealth is in the form of publicly traded shares that are easily auditable.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#346

Post by overthemoon »

imgabe wrote: post #341
overthemoon wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these (except the pizza?) are the result of policy, a billion dollars is. None of these polarize undemocratic power, a billion dollars does. None of them are innate in the sense that they cannot be separated from the person like extreme wealth. Height and athletic ability are neutral in a way that extreme wealth are not. Height and athletic ability are biological and meritorious in a way extreme wealth could…

You are missing the point. When you start talking about what "should" be, you imply that there is some authority in charge of deciding the rightness of what is or isn't. Who is that authority? Which bureaucrat in Washington do you want to sit at a desk and decide how much money you are allowed to have? Right now Jeff Bezos "has" umpty-billion dollars because he owns so many shares of Amazon stock and the market value…

I'm not missing the point at all. Yes, in short, I believe the government could make that choice. Yes, I believe in redistribution. Taxes are one means for that. Your argument seems to be that literally no one has thought this through, which is patently false. Anyway, we've shifted from a theoretical question about billionaires to a question of practical implementation, which is beyond the scope of an HN comment from a dumbass like me. If you want to know who I think is doing some of the most serious and noteworthy research and writing on this and many other topics related to social welfare and redistribution, check out the People's Policy Project: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#347

Post by imgabe »

overthemoon wrote: post #346
imgabe wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point. When you start talking about what "should" be, you imply that there is some authority in charge of deciding the rightness of what is or isn't. Who is that authority? Which bureaucrat in Washington do you want to sit at a desk and decide how much money you are allowed to have? Right now Jeff Bezos "has" umpty-billion dollars because he owns so many shares of Amazon stock and the market value…

I'm not missing the point at all. Yes, in short, I believe the government could make that choice. Yes, I believe in redistribution. Taxes are one means for that. Your argument seems to be that literally no one has thought this through, which is patently false. Anyway, we've shifted from a theoretical question about billionaires to a question of practical implementation, which is beyond the scope of an HN comment from…

There is nothing on that website about any proposal to cap personal net worth at $1 billion or any other amount.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#348

Post by hnhg »

omarhaneef wrote: post #338
hnhg wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't dismiss what you're saying but tbh it's very opaque - do you have a link to something that explains what you're trying to say? Something mathematical would help (for the reasons I outlined in my earlier reply!)

Let's take a function that produces normally distributed random variables. Let's run this function at every moment in time starting at t=0, and then sum it with the prior sum. You can use a function that sort of looks like that to simulate a lot of different processes (a random walk, brownian motion etc). Here is a more mathematical write up of the properties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_process Now I can ru…

Thanks. I dived into this and tbh I'd like someone to take what you've mentioned and extend the discussion in the original paper further.

IMO, the paper's simulation tells us explicitly the full extent of what they've been considering, so it's a useful tool for the reader to judge the ideas. I know you might disagree but it gives a firm definition of ideas to me, at least, and avoids me having to over interpret based on my own biases of what I'm reading.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#349

Post by MR4D »

An interesting couple of quotes in the article that make me wonder about their conclusion:

The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,

Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck

By definition, this can't be completely true, as pure luck would mean pure randomness, and apparently, both tails (the most and the least talented) are never the richest. Such situation is at odds with a random distribution.

So there is a missing part of the model that may explain it, but it's not random.

That being said, I'm not trying to nit-pick the work they've done. Clearly there is something at play here that has huge social significance for every person on the planet.

Fascinating work - I'm looking forward to seeing how this research grows over the coming years.

Re: The most successful people are just the luckiest, a new computer model confirms

#350

Post by TurkishPoptart »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #166
LyndsySimon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Health issues are another thing. If I’m remembering your previous posts correctly, you’re quite aware that mental health is absolutely a part of this. It’s a very big part for some people. I’ve never felt that I’ve lack “smart”. What I lack is passion, willpower, and consistency. From where I sit, I expect that I’d be much better off both financially and emotionally if my situation were reversed.

If I’m remembering your previous posts correctly, you’re quite aware that mental health is absolutely a part of this. Yes. I do a poor job of making that clear because I feel so strongly that physical health and mental health cannot be neatly separated. "A sound mind in a sound body." To me, (a lack of) "passion, willpower, and consistency" really sounds like someone with low energy due to a hidden health issue. I wa…

what's the disorder? how do you feel know that you've been diagnosed?
Post reply on HN